Committee pauses emergency‑safety rule after questions on definitions and data reporting; staff to meet sponsor

The Law and Licensing Committee on June 6 postponed action on proposed amendments to R277‑608, the rule that governs emergency safety interventions (ESI) and the prohibition of corporal punishment, after members pressed staff for clearer definitions and a practicable reporting pathway.

Deputy Superintendent Amber Nooyi told the committee the draft reflects changes required by Senate Bill 170 (2025), including new definitions and a statutory list of data elements LEAs must report: incident date and duration; purpose of the ESI; alternative and de‑escalation strategies attempted; identifying information about the student; and training records for staff involved. Nooyi said the agency intends to add the data fields to the state student information system (UtahTRAC/SIMS), but those fields likely will not be ready until the 2026‑27 school year.

Committee members and staff debated the rule’s language. Member Carrie Carey pushed to change repeated phrasing to stronger language, moving the committee to approve an amendment to require that “an emergency safety intervention shall not be used for disciplinary purposes.” Nooyi’s staff accepted the amendment and clarified the bill’s statutory text distinguishes seclusion and physical restraint used solely as an ESI (for immediate danger) from uses that are disciplinary or punitive.

Members and staff then turned to the data reporting mandate. Agency staff presented three short‑term options: (1) wait until the state data system is updated; (2) collect aggregate, end‑of‑year LEA reports (one annual submission); or (3) deploy an interim incident‑level form (Qualtrics or similar) so LEAs can report each ESI occurrence as it happens. Nooyi said district counsel and superintendents surveyed preferred option 3 because it minimized end‑of‑year recall errors.

Because the legislation already requires annual reporting and the rule contains new definitions and an investigative‑protocol requirement, the committee directed staff to meet with the sponsor of SB 170 to: (a) discuss possibilities for delaying the implementation date of the state reporting requirement; (b) review the statutory requirement to write rules outlining investigation protocols; and (c) explore alternate language for “intervention” to reduce confusion in practice. The committee asked staff to return with proposed clarifications for the July committee meeting.

Ending: The committee postponed R277‑608 to the July meeting for further drafting after staff meetings with the bill sponsor and additional internal review; members requested clearer, unified terminology and a practical interim reporting approach.